UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD JOHNSON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00017-TDS-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Johnson, Sr., appeals his conviction and fifty-
seven month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). Counsel
for Johnson filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of Johnson’s
sentence. Johnson was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government has
chosen not to file a brief. We affirm.
This court reviews Johnson’s sentence for
reasonableness, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the
district court correctly calculated Johnson’s advisory
Guidelines range, this Court must decide whether the court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed the
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If the
sentence is free of significant procedural error, this court
reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Lynn,
2
592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007).
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude
that Johnson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that
the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting the plea.
We therefore affirm Johnson’s conviction. As for Johnson’s
sentence, we conclude that the district court correctly
calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range and appropriately
applied the § 3553(a) factors. The sentence is thus
procedurally reasonable. Further, we conclude that Johnson’s
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (a
sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is presumed
reasonable on appeal). Counsel’s assertions are not sufficient
to rebut this presumption. We therefore affirm Johnson’s
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We thus affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Johnson requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Johnson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4